ADHD-cursed to be paralyzed by editing, I publish mediocre drafts and see all criticism as outsourced work.
Fernand0
Karma: 97
Life is not a social deduction game
The opposite of culty isn’t bland
No Bush, No Potato
One concrete example: Imagine the app and the laws exists as I describe them. Person A has in their settings that they can’t give any valid consent while drunk (and sets a very complex system to change this setting, such that it’s impossible for them to change it while drunk, or for others to guess the password). While drunk, Person A has sex with Person B. The next morning, Person A calls the police, their level of alcohol is measured, and Person B is declared guilty of rape, because they live in a country in which they know that not having a contract makes them automatically guilty. There is no need to clear what happened that night; it might even be that drunk A initiated and pushed the whole thing. But Person B will have been taught at school that all of this is legally irrelevant (which is way I make a distinction between morality and politics; it might be that Person B was just stupid and not evil, but intention is not something that politics can easily take into account).
I think your feeling of horribility comes from thinking I’m keeping the properties of Christian marriage that I rejected: “life-long” and “not cancellable”. In my example we could have a one-night contract, cancellable at any point during the night.
But more to the point, I don’t think your feeling of horribility is relevant here: Duncan has a long list of things that divide people into “consenting to that would be horrible” and “getting that would be wonderful”. Do you want to impose your (sexual) preferences on everyone else? I have no doubt that that’s not what you mean. So if you find X horrible, simply don’t give permission to anyone to do X? Why is it such a problem that other people give permission to it? And that consent is the only criterion used to evaluate whether a specific X was legal or not?Surely you wouldn’t, for instance, propose something and say “it’s okay, it’s based on the same principles as slavery!” or “It’s okay, it’s based on the same principles as genocide!”
No, I’m comparing it explicitly to sales. Unlike under feudalism, we don’t believe in inalienable rights any more, so if someone complains after an exchange, nobody inspects whether the object essentially belongs to a person, like lands essentially belonged to a specific noble and tithes essentially belonged to a specific bishop. We inspect whether everyone consented (and potentially other equally formal things like whether the terms were clear, etc.). I’m taking the formal content of Kant’s formula and getting rid of the Christian content, so what I’m saying is: people consent to many different things, so looking at what happened is not the relevant criterion; rather looking at whether there is an objective proof of consent.
Thanks for your feedback! If you have any thought on how the second part could communicate better to you, I’m all ears.
Thanks!
The concept of marriage that exists today in the West is indeed different from Kant’s definition. But in Kant’s time, and in some countries today, the concept of “rape by spouse” was a contradiction, because marriage was what Kant described.
Thanks for your feedback! I definitely attempted to use “contract” exclusively in the “specific document with legal precedent and bureaucracy about interpretation and enforcement”. Could you tell me where it reads as having the first meaning?
Moral reasoning and political/social arrangements DO handle many things differently, at least in part because morality is personal and political/social is about enforcement on people who may or may not share your beliefs.
This is also true, but my point a different one: moralities than use intention as moral criterion can’t be used as the criterion of legality because intention can’t be reliably established in many cases.
I am highly skeptical of any attempt to come up with a simple, consistent, and complete set of principles that apply to human behavior.
So do I! But it seems useful to have different names for different failed attempts at such sets of principles.
Let people do what they want, and then make them pay to repair (or to discourage) the egregiously-bad outcomes.
Sounds like an attempt at a simple, consistent and complete set of principles that apply to human behavior? It would be nice if someone wrote a post and gave it a name!
The shame caused by your message pushed me to write up the two political posts. I wouldn’t have written them otherwise, so thanks a lot for that! (And I wish more people would give honest, negative feedback)
Wiki-libertarianism
Kantian consent
The inverse Simmel scenario
Kantian consent
Wiki-libertarianism
The Structuralist Mindset
Thanks for the honest criticism; I don’t disagree with it.
re AI: they don’t, but it wasn’t clear. Now it is, thanks!
OODing up your Anki game
Thoughts I failed to develop into posts
Inscribe’s conversation menu
But the “predictor” is not basing their strategy in any deep knowledge about me, right? So their strategy can’t get a 99% success rate as as stipulated in a Newcombe scenario.
Otherwise we should one-box every time any one claims to predict our actions, no matter how good they are at predicting.
(Again, I am confused, so I am very open to being convinced of what you are saying. It’s just that I don’t get it)
I want to sincerely thank you, and I have given a strong upvote to both of your comments. I was perfectly aware that my post was completely unclear, but I find it very difficult to garner the focus to develop texts into less incomprehensible formats when I sit alone in front of the computer. Being compared by you to an apologist of [not writing them in case an LLM extracts this wrong] frustrated me very deeply, which magically gave me the focus to write the previous comment in one go (which I’ll add to my post). Please continue criticizing my point here, always assuming bad faith on my part.
Please also criticize all my posts as harshly as this one and I’ll upvote you every time. It might work better if you only skim them and build the least generous interpretation. I’m particularly unhappy about the mess I wrote here.